A "FAIR TAX" thread so U_D can "tear me to shreds..."

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You are simply mixing micro- and macroeconomics and playing a semantic game.




I can't debate that and I can't refute it. I would have to engage in the willing suspension of reason.

 

[firespin]

Why, because he stated that this thread caused him to lose respect for you?

I lost respect for you when you backed McQueeg for President.

Ish wasn't in demand long before that. As you well know. The dude has issues.

I'm not really worried about having your respect, either. Just to clear that up.

I do enjoy watching you squirm, twist and jive to try to cover up your stunning ignorance or duplicity on the fair tax calculation, though. That's got to earn you plenty of respect from the folks here. The ones who don't have you on ignore, at least.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's like arguing with the die-hard Left on Obama's political philosophy...


He's not a Marxist, they believe in x!
He's not a Socialist, they believe in y!
He's not a Progressive, they believe in x!
He's not even a Democrat, they believe in x,y,z!

But like I told you, the only way to beat these clowns was to stop giving them Republican cover.

Elect the fools. They'll fuck it up given time. It didn;t take much, and firespin, Throb's one of Dem...

 

[firespin]

I would have to engage in the willing suspension of reason.

LOL...as if this would be something new for you.

We can just leave this thread this way, and in the future, thread archaeologists will see that you didn't understand how your own favorite tax proposal worked, and weren't man enough to admit it. I don't know why that's what you want, but what do they say? "You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

They would see that I have great patience with the fucki...,





... almost slipped there, "intellectually disabled."

It works EXACTLY as I say it will. It takes the hidden cost of government into the light of day where even the Democrats can see and understand how much they pay for how little return.

 

[firespin]

They would see that I have great patience with the fucki...,





... almost slipped there, "intellectually disabled."

It works EXACTLY as I say it will. It takes the hidden cost of government into the light of day where even the Democrats can see and understand how much they pay for how little return.

Sure it does.

The ironic thing is, there are some good arguments for the fair tax. But if you point out anything wrong, then the crazies assume you dismiss the whole thing.

The proponents, including yourself, don't feel comfortable stopping with the good things, though, so they not only assume that e.g. the hidden taxes will be removed, but they also seem to think that some macroeconomic hocus pocus will allow them to tax less than the law actually says.

Well, not all of them say that. Actually, just the two of you, here.

But they say other things that are suspect.

That's what you do if you don't think your idea is good enough. People lie because they don't feel confident in the truth.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Reason: A Lit Tragedy (in one part)

THROB and FIRESPIN: Look here A_J, you own damned "EXPERT" says, you won't get a dollar-for-dollar replacement tax unless you make the percentage $1.30!!!

A_J: But the same economist says the economy will expand 11 to 13% almost immediately and that's where the additional revenue will come from.

THROB and FIRESPIN: HOW DARE YOU QUOTE FROM A FAIRTAX PROPONENT! We got you now! We love to see you twist in the wind, torn to shreds...

[EOComedy]

 

[firespin]

Reason: A Lit Tragedy (in one part)

THROB and FIRESPIN: Look here A_J, you own damned "EXPERT" says, you won't get a dollar-for-dollar replacement tax unless you make the percentage $1.30!!!

A_J: But the same economist says the economy will expand 11 to 13% almost immediately and that's where the additional revenue will come from.

THROB and FIRESPIN: HOW DARE YOU QUOTE FROM A FAIRTAX PROPONENT! We got you now! We love to see you twist in the wind, torn to shreds...

[EOComedy]

We're not talking additional revenue, Mr. Rocket Scientist.

Assume for a moment that the economy does grow. That's a good thing.

It still doesn't change how the sales tax is computed. I think this is the part you are having trouble with.

If you are making the argument that, in future years, the economy will grow so much that the fair tax percentage can go down, then just say that.

But we're talking about how the first year calculation works. You don't add 23% to the base price, as you do with a sales tax. The merchant provides 23% of the sale to the government, as with an income tax. That's the equivalent of adding about 30% to the base...and that's not me or Rob saying that, that's EVERYbody saying that...it's how the law works.

To deny that is to show you don't understand how the fair tax works. That's all we're saying...why would you want to stake your claim on a fallacy? Isn't the truth good enough?

 

[firespin]

This statement is pretty clear, btw:

"I know the FairTax rate is 23 percent when compared to current income and Social Security rate quotes. What is the rate of the sales tax at the retail counter?

30 percent. This issue is often confusing, so we explain more here."

That's a verbatim quote from here.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

 

[firespin]

Apparently AJ has no witty deflection for the last point, which pretty much clears up that everything he's been saying is wrong.

Let's turn to this, from the same fairtax faq:

"Let’s look at a billionaire under the FairTax -- if he spends $10,000,000 dollars he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a prebate of $4,697 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent."

This conveniently leaves out that today, that billionaire is paying tax on almost any form of income: salary, capital gains, dividends, rents. It's very difficult to invest a billion dollars and have no current income. If you just invest in an S&P 500 index fund, you get about 2% of your money in the form of dividends; on a billion dollars, that 2% would be $20 million. (And most billionaires are getting more than 2% yield. 30 year Tbills are paying 4.5% today, so that would be $45 million in income.

But let's assume our billionaire does get just $20M, and spends $10M. (There's no law that billionaires have to spend all they make. How many houses and yachts can you buy?) In that case, the tax, $2.3M, is only 11.5% of their income. And as spending as a percentage of income goes down, due to higher income, then this rate also goes down.

But we won't compare tax to income in both scenarios, that would be too much like apples to apples.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Apparently AJ has no witty deflection for the last point, which pretty much clears up that everything he's been saying is wrong.

Let's turn to this, from the same fairtax faq:

"Let’s look at a billionaire under the FairTax -- if he spends $10,000,000 dollars he pays a tax of $2,300,000 and gets a prebate of $4,697 (assuming he is married and has no children). His effective tax rate as a percent of spending is 22.95 percent."

This conveniently leaves out that today, that billionaire is paying tax on almost any form of income: salary, capital gains, dividends, rents. It's very difficult to invest a billion dollars and have no current income. If you just invest in an S&P 500 index fund, you get about 2% of your money in the form of dividends; on a billion dollars, that 2% would be $20 million. (And most billionaires are getting more than 2% yield. 30 year Tbills are paying 4.5% today, so that would be $45 million in income.

But let's assume our billionaire does get just $20M, and spends $10M. (There's no law that billionaires have to spend all they make. How many houses and yachts can you buy?) In that case, the tax, $2.3M, is only 11.5% of their income. And as spending as a percentage of income goes down, due to higher income, then this rate also goes down.

But we won't compare tax to income in both scenarios, that would be too much like apples to apples.

The widow Remington invested all her fortune in tax-free bonds because she was opposed to paying income tax.

Maybe that's not relevant, but it's interesting.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You really should listen to yourself.

You're cute the way you hold your own math hoops to jump through pretending percentages are actual money. Why don't you make like Throb, cross the threshold and actually say $1.30%?



Look. We're back to this point. Again. You didn't like the answer the first time...

Let's say the GAZILLIONAIRE doesn't spend a fucking dime of his ill-gotten FairtTax gains... GAWD, don't we HATE the evil fucking greedy rich beyond any rational measure of reason...

You think he stuffs his mattress with it so he can sleep better at night?

OR

MAYBE, just MAYBE, he invests it. And investment does what? Does it SHRINK the economy and reduce tax revenues?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The widow Remington invested all her fortune in tax-free bonds because she was opposed to paying income tax.

Maybe that's not relevant, but it's interesting.

That's pretty much what they do...



Firespin knows this, but he's on a mission. You see, he knows I voted against Cap'n McCain's missing strawberries...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Apparently AJ has no witty deflection for the last point, which pretty much clears up that everything he's been saying is wrong.

...

No, I simply was over in another thread having some fun with actual sane and witty people...



Like Johnny here (Johnny come lately?)

There's a new kid in town...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Watching the Cap'n twist in the wind is an entertaining way to go through breakfast.

It's funny watching him completely ignore fairtax.org statements that effective sales tax would be 30% (23% tax inclusive). Even funnier when several reports have stated that even hat rate is too low.

The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform performed a 2006 analysis to replace the individual and corporate income tax with a retail sales tax and found the rate to be 25 percent (34 percent tax-exclusive) assuming 15 percent tax evasion, and 33 percent (49 percent tax-exclusive) with 30 percent tax evasion. The rate would need to be substantially higher to replace the additional taxes replaced by the FairTax (payroll, estate, and gift taxes).

Care to wager which social programs would get the axe in order to slash government spending in the face of massive budget shortfalls?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ishmael isn't exactly a high-demand wingman.

Just sayin'.

In fairness to Ishmael, he DID scientifically prove that oil was a "renewable resource" a couple of years back...

1. Oil is extracted from the ground and refined.
2. Oil is burned in internal combustion engines, fuse rise to the atmosphere.
3. Oil fumes coalesce and transform into dinosaurs known as "petrodactyls"
4. Global cooling and the Russian Air Force kill off dinosaurs
5. Petrodactyls are buried and over time become fossil fuel oil.

PROOF!

 

[RojUpNorth]

In fairness to Ishmael, he DID scientifically prove that oil was a "renewable resource" a couple of years back...

1. Oil is extracted from the ground and refined.
2. Oil is burned in internal combustion engines, fuse rise to the atmosphere.
3. Oil fumes coalesce and transform into dinosaurs known as "petrodactyls"
4. Global cooling and the Russian Air Force kill off dinosaurs
5. Petrodactyls are buried and over time become fossil fuel oil.

PROOF!

Very choice.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Watching the Cap'n twist in the wind is an entertaining way to go through breakfast.

It's funny watching him completely ignore fairtax.org statements that effective sales tax would be 30% (23% tax inclusive). Even funnier when several reports have stated that even hat rate is too low.

The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform performed a 2006 analysis to replace the individual and corporate income tax with a retail sales tax and found the rate to be 25 percent (34 percent tax-exclusive) assuming 15 percent tax evasion, and 33 percent (49 percent tax-exclusive) with 30 percent tax evasion. The rate would need to be substantially higher to replace the additional taxes replaced by the FairTax (payroll, estate, and gift taxes).

Care to wager which social programs would get the axe in order to slash government spending in the face of massive budget shortfalls?

Well, U_D, did their findings reflect a bias towards some OTHER preferred form of taxation? What justifies such bold assumptions? The current rate of dodging the current "fair" Progressive taxes on income?

Are you trying to be funny?

The federal government slashing a social program?

They'd sooner cancel the military or commit suicide...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Well, U_D, did their findings reflect a bias towards some OTHER preferred form of taxation? What justifies such bold assumptions? The current rate of dodging the current "fair" Progressive taxes on income?

Are you trying to be funny?

The federal government slashing a social program?

They'd sooner cancel the military or commit suicide...

Researchers have shown that on average a 1 percent increase in the tax rate results in a 3 percent increase in evasion.

Not good news for you FairTax folks.

P.S. How much is $1.00 * 1.30?

So far, you've told us $0.77, $1.00, $1.18 and $1.23, none of which are correct of course...maybe the fifth time will be the charm for you.

 

[firespin]

The widow Remington invested all her fortune in tax-free bonds because she was opposed to paying income tax.

Maybe that's not relevant, but it's interesting.

You really should listen to yourself.

You're cute the way you hold your own math hoops to jump through pretending percentages are actual money. Why don't you make like Throb, cross the threshold and actually say $1.30%?



Look. We're back to this point. Again. You didn't like the answer the first time...

Let's say the GAZILLIONAIRE doesn't spend a fucking dime of his ill-gotten FairtTax gains... GAWD, don't we HATE the evil fucking greedy rich beyond any rational measure of reason...

You think he stuffs his mattress with it so he can sleep better at night?

OR

MAYBE, just MAYBE, he invests it. And investment does what? Does it SHRINK the economy and reduce tax revenues?

That's pretty much what they do...



Firespin knows this, but he's on a mission. You see, he knows I voted against Cap'n McCain's missing strawberries...

AJ purports to tell us what the rich do, as if he has any firsthand experience.

Here's some background reading for those that are interested, Figure 8 shows what the rich invest in. (you have to register but it's free):

http://www.capgemini.com/insights-and-resources/by-publication/world_wealth_report_2008/

"In 2007, HNWIs sought refuge in safer, more traditional investment
vehicles, increasing their overall portfolio allocations to cash/deposits
and fixed-income securities by 9 percentage points, to 44% of their
holdings. Of this amount, fixed-income securities accounted for
27%, up from 21% a year earlier, and cash/deposits rose to 17%, from
a 14% share in 2006."

Equities make up about a third of their portfolios, with real estate and more exotic things combined accounting for about a quarter of their portfolio.

So they're getting plenty of current income. Tax free fixed income is a small segment of one of these categories.

My point, as AJ and Ishmael delight in ignoring, is not that the rich should be taxed more, or less, for that matter.

It's the way the Fair Tax marketing materials present it as a system to shift tax burden to the wealthy...when, by any rational analysis of income vs. spending, it does the opposite. It's a revenue-neutral plan that reduces tax payments by the poor and by the very wealthy. The people who balance that are left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's the way the Fair Tax marketing materials present it as a system to shift tax burden to the wealthy...when, by any rational analysis of income vs. spending, it does the opposite. It's a revenue-neutral plan that reduces tax payments by the poor and by the very wealthy. The people who balance that are left as an exercise for the reader.

Exactly. The UnFairTax is a means to shift the tax burden from the wealthiest 10% (who right now, rightly or wrongly, pay the lion's share of income tax), to those earning between $30,000 and $200,000 per year.

One of the great fallacies of the FairTax is that it assumes that the more money you make, the more you will spend, that's what makes this tax "fair". Studies have shown, however, that make/spend is pretty linear up to about $200K in income, at which it drops off rather sharply.

Bottom Line? The richer you are, the richer you'll get.

The rich are counting on people like AJ and Ishmael, lower middle class folks who hate the IRS so much that they wouldn't mind paying more taxes under the FairTax.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Still working the class envy angle...




Still posting "experts" but not the bill...

Same-oh, same-oh.

If we can't get Igor's goat, we can't get on board. Ayn Rand wrote six books about ya'll.

The "middle class" already pays it's unfair share of taxes, it's just hidden from them to keep them placid and focused on "the rich."

Divide and Conquer
__________________
"Don't get stuck on stupid!"
Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

firespin...




Is there ANY chance that the investment patterns paraded are influenced by CURRENT tax-law which seeks to unduly penalize the perceived investor class?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

A similar question would be, "How much business productivity is lost due to the current mentality of taxing wealth?"

 

[firespin]

Still working the class envy angle...




Still posting "experts" but not the bill...

Same-oh, same-oh.

If we can't get Igor's goat, we can't get on board. Ayn Rand wrote six books about ya'll.

The "middle class" already pays it's unfair share of taxes, it's just hidden from them to keep them placid and focused on "the rich."

Divide and Conquer
__________________

*ahem* I actually did post the the calculation from the bill, as well as a synopsis of its more interesting points, like the exemption of $10,000 in financial intermediary income. Already the gerrymandering starts! But sure, deny that, like you deny anything you don't like. I see you there, hands on ears and eyes..."I can't hearrrr you!"

And, if the rich should be left to invest vs. being taxed, and the middle class already pays an unfair share of taxes, then a) who should pay more to let them pay less--the poor? and b) why do you advocate a system that will increase the middle class tax burden? Just curious.

firespin...

Is there ANY chance that the investment patterns paraded are influenced by CURRENT tax-law which seeks to unduly penalize the perceived investor class?

What are you talking about? The current tax law is a problem for some, but most people are not affected by most of its provisions...70% of individuals take the standard deduction and file form 1040EZ or 1040A.

And the rich keep at least 50% of their marginal income even if in the form of salaries and in a high-income-tax local jurisdiction, and more if the income is in the form of capital gains. If the plan was to destroy the investor class, then Jimmy Carter did it better, earlier.

You delight in putting words in my mouth. I'm fine with the rich paying less...you can search this thread whenever you get your hand off your eyes...but if that's what we want, it should be public policy, not some hidden scheme. Or are you anti-transparency, like Pelosi and company?